PACs and McCain-Feingold

George Will

4/12/2001 12:00:00 AM - George Will

WASHINGTON--What is liberalism's appeal? Surely less its
plausibility
than the surprises it provides. Liberals constantly experience the
excitement of the unexpected, the thrill of being startled by the
unanticipated--if only by them--consequences of their actions.
After Senate passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill
became a foregone conclusion, The Washington Post, which adores the
bill,
carried this front page headline: ``Campaign Bill Could Shift Power Away
From Parties.'' (BEG ITAL)Could? McCain-Feingold would ban
soft
money contributions to political parties, so (BEG ITAL)of course(END
ITAL)
money diverted from that channel will flow into unblocked channels. The
Post considers this news?
Do reformers consider this progress? Since when? Not long ago,
political action committees were the root of all evil--refusing PAC
contributions was, indeed still is, a form of moral grandstanding by
some
candidates.
Disregard the rhetoric by McCain-Feingold enthusiasts about their
bill
curing the ``problem'' of ``too much money in politics.'' Here are two
safe
bets: There will be more money spent in the 2001-2002 off-year election
cycle than was spent in 1997-1998, and more spent in 2003-2004 than in
1999-2000.
The realistic way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to
reduce the amount of politics in money--the importance of government in
allocating wealth and opportunity. Does the Post advocate less
government
as a path to less political money? No.
The realistic way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to
reduce the amount of politics in money--the importance of government in
allocating wealth and opportunity. Does the Post advocate less
government
as a path to less political money? No.
Alighting upon the obvious with a self-congratulatory sense of
original discovery, the Times reports that ``suddenly, the large labor
groups, corporations, trade associations and ideological organizations
that
funnel their political largess through PACs may find that they are the
largest players on the field because their soft-money competitors can no
longer participate.'' Then the Times, constantly liberal and thus
incessantly surprised, used the U-word, ``unexpected'': ``The prospect
that
PACs will become only more influential marks an unexpected turn because
for
years those committees were portrayed as the villains.''
If McCain-Feingold becomes law, by next year liberals, and McCain,
will be describing PACs the way they describe all sources of political
communication not yet rationed by regulations--as ``loopholes'' to be
closed. They will propose closing the loophole by banning (their
favorite
word) PACs, or narrowing the loophole by, say, limiting the proportion
of a
candidate's contributions that PACs can provide.
Three days after that Times story, the lead story in Roll Call, the
newspaper that covers Congress, was headlined: ``Soft-Money PACs
Banned.''
Do tell.
More than 40 House and Senate members operate so-called
``leadership
PACs'' funded by soft money. But some members seem to have been too busy
praising McCain-Feingold to read that bill. While voting for its ban on
soft-money fund raising by the national party committees, they neglected
to
read what Roll Call calls ``a little-noticed provision'' prohibiting
federal legislators or candidates for federal office from raising
unregulated money for their PACs.
Roll Call--written, mind you, for professional legislators and
their
staffs--says dryly: ``That came as news to some Senate leaders who have
opened leadership political action committees that operate outside of
federal regulations.'' On March 19, the day debate on the bill began,
Joseph Lieberman, a McCain-Feingold supporter, filed papers with the
Federal Election Commission for his new leadership PAC. House Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt, who says ``the Senate passed a good bill,''
recently launched a soft-money PAC. Senators and representatives might
have
assumed, understandably, they would be exempt from a soft-money ban
because
Congress has often exempted itself from regulations it imposes on
others.
Roll Call--written, mind you, for professional legislators and
their
staffs--says dryly: ``That came as news to some Senate leaders who have
opened leadership political action committees that operate outside of
federal regulations.'' On March 19, the day debate on the bill began,
Joseph Lieberman, a McCain-Feingold supporter, filed papers with the
Federal Election Commission for his new leadership PAC. House Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt, who says ``the Senate passed a good bill,''
recently launched a soft-money PAC. Senators and representatives might
have
assumed, understandably, they would be exempt from a soft-money ban
because
Congress has often exempted itself from regulations it imposes on
others.
Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and many of the other
liberal
lobbies backing McCain-Feingold candidly say that it is inadequate,
other
than as a step toward public funding of all campaigns. That is, a system
in
which the only permissible political communication by parties and
candidates would be what the government pays for.
If McCain-Feingold becomes law, liberals (and McCain, a
conservative
infected by liberalism's faith that good intentions, cleverly codified,
can
scrub the naughtiness from this fallen world) will soon demand more
reforms
to correct the unanticipated (by them) consequences of their reforms.
That,
too, is part of liberalism's appeal: It provides steady work.